Forum rules

Do not make an initial post to start a new thread on this forum once you advance beyond the beginner level of posts. This forum is an experiment with the purpose of encouraging the participation of those who have so far only hung out in the background and looked over the bulletin board. It is intended to be a place where things are orderly for beginners without the free interaction of the main board. Post only with care for the recognition that we are welcoming a new member and not arguing with a fellow old timer. Your cooperation is appreciated.

Following the below discussion in 2010, I tried to get Tom's opinion on abortion, but he chose not to respond, I presume for good reason.

Whenever you get into a mental space where most of your bandwidth is consumed by your perception of the apparent bad behavior of others, you are on dangerous ground, ego-wise.

More importantly, you have great potential to harm yourself, your IUOC's quality, and AUM itself, through forming selfish intent. The problem with sitting in judgement of the selfishness of others, for anything, is that it is highly likely a trick of ego, a distraction from that next thing you should be doing to improve yourself, your behavior.

Actually taking action, lets say, paying pregnant girls with unwanted fetus's, to have the child, is a different category. Actually taking some action, at cost to yourself, non-judgementally, gently, is a whole different ball game, and not the usual MO of ego. All the talk and judgement and bluster....more suspicious.

==
1) Kroeran: "so IUOCs are generating FWAUs, and the earth rule-set is generating Sensor Platforms....so what is the governace/decision making process for linking up an FWAU to a Sensor Platform? Are they created (conceived) by the intent of the IUOC?"

Tom: There are always a few special cases in the margins that don't follow the general rules (information flow) because the Larger consciousness system (LCS) is playing all sides of the game, but generally the flow is something like this: 1) the rule-set allows/requires sensor platforms to reproduce for their own reasons and drives. 2) the more advanced IUOC is looking for a general set of conditions and circumstances that favors specific growth potential for that IUOC and meets its intended goals. The less advanced IUOC is just looking for experience in a general way, and within a very broad range, one set of conditions and circumstances is about as good as another.
The IUOC picks a platform that generally suits its needs. IUOCs that are advanced enough to require very specific circumstances may have to wait until the system brokers a good match or creates a good match through nudging the data sent to the platforms (refer to discussion of synchronicity and manipulating uncertainty at both the macro (behavior, intuition and circumstance) and micro (biological cellular/DNA) levels. Such IUOCs are not in a big hurry and do more extensive up front planning and coordination to get the right general set up they want/need. Plans are usually not terribly detailed because free will makes intricate plans difficult to execute. If the goals are very specific the plan will likely be more specific. Plans, in some circumstances, can be revised and coordinated in real time by the LCS. The LCS's criteria for its decision process is to optimize the reduction of system entropy. Thus PMR opportunities are limited but grow and become more sophisticated and complex as the evolving virtual reality trainer matures and become more sophisticated and complex.

2) Kroeran: and/or when is the linkage normally made (biologically speaking)....which trimestre?

Tom: It is not a 0 to 1 function at some particular time. The FAWU eases into its new role slowly as more of its attention is consumed by available PMR experience. That data flow is constrained by the rule-set -- sparse at first and grows as the platform develops. It parallel processes multiple frames -- with the percentage of its total aware communication (data exchange) in PMR growing until about 5 to 7 years old when that percentage gets close to 100 percent.

3) Kroeran: do you start with materially easier incarnations, then work toward incarnations such as kids that are terminal (looking for different or more challenging experiences)

Tom: Yes. (see discussion above)

4) Kroeran: or are "apparently" unfavorable incarnations for IUOCs with less resources to trade with?

Tom: No. The point is to optimize the LCS, not the individual. The incarnation taken is one that has good potential for the system to grow. Incarnations are interactive and affect many others - the likely total affect is what is generally optimized in potential.

5) Kroeran: are female incarnation's early or late incarnations in the process?

Tom: Neither. Each presents its own challenges and potential and thus each sometimes offers a better choice to an IUOC depending on the nature and circumstances of that IUOC as it evolves. As an IUOCs entropy significantly lowers it makes less and less difference which sex any incarnation takes (the differences in challenge and potential becomes less significant) and choices are often made on individual preference. Thus a sex can be associated with some IUOCs

6) Kroeran: how valuable are Sensor Platforms?

Tom: How valuable are World of Warcraft or SIMS players? Very valuable if you want to play that game. The PMR game is very valuable - it must be an efficient evolution trainer concept because it is widely duplicated and employed with functionally minor variations.

7) Kroeran: is there value to (to the chicken) providing life (however short) to farm chickens?

Tom: Chickens, like people, exist because they are probable according to our rule-set which defines the opportunities PMR has to evolve. And just like people, chickens, have their place in the interactive, interdependent ecosystem. Chickens are sentient beings. Thus, on a fundamental level, what (in terms of consciousness evolution) applies to humans, applies to chickens. They simply have less growth potential and very small decision space compared to people.

8) Kroeran: for each sentient entity, does someone have to rush around looking for a IOUC to "animate" it?

Tom: No one ever runs... there are big signs saying: "Dont Run" and "No Running Allowed" all over the place -- the LCS is very safety conscious. :-).

The consciousness system is very large beyond our comprehension, it can bubble up another part of itself to meet whatever demand is required. If it needed, it could depress the fertility rate with some well placed nudging and synchronicity within the natural uncertainty of the PMR system -- but only if such meddling would be required to optimize the lowering of system entropy in the long term. The LCS does good and careful science and takes the long view (longer and more patient and more forward looking than we can imagine).

This is my last post on this topic to say that I got the information I was looking for. It's the same information I have been getting for many years now which is why I am very skeptical of the viability of the human mind. Even more now than ever after seeing some of these responses.

Fast, on the contrary, I don't want to save anything. I just want to love and be loved. I know that this reality is just a virtual training ground for consciousness because I have experienced non localized consciousness through mediation and experimentation. I am just trying to get a bead on the current entropy state of my counterparts in the classroom.

And yes, I assumed that someone posting on the TOE boards would have read the book. May bad.

Here's a couple of pictures of my beautiful daughter Julia that my Wife and I chose to have even though we were homeless and without jobs at the time. I understand that life is hard at times, very hard, but look at the joy that came of a loving choice to persevere. She is a very kind soul that has a lot to offer the classroom and I am happy I was able to help make it happen.

What I hope, is that everyone can see through the fear and love each other unconditionally. Through this the world will be saved, not through me begging you not to kill a life.

Your thoughts on reading a discussion on abortion are probably, based upon your posts here, including horror at the idea that under the circumstances that your first child was conceived anyone could have the thought of aborting a pregnancy and losing the experience of having such a child as yours and the experiences of you and your wife as her parents. The main thing that is different about your family and what I posted is that you were a family and you had each other. That is the critical factor. No matter what the prospects looking ahead might have been, that was the bottom line of your experience, having each other to support each other in every way. That will be the case for some women who find themselves pregnant and even for some who do not have this family support, they have an intense desire to have the child. What I am pointing out is that when this does not exist and when a woman finds herself very alone with the prospect of bringing up a child in this world and her situation, and makes the choice to not proceed, that is not a disaster for the unborn child or aborted child, however you wish to call it. The System takes care of IUOCs. Not of every Virtual child that might have been, but of every IUOC that exists. Virtual beings, yourself included and all of your family and all of the rest of us communicating here on this BB are Virtual. We are simulations. Our real existence is as the IUOCs that serve as our minds which have a continual existence in Consciousness space and also a continual existence as our NPMR experiences. Those are the things that are preserved and are never at risk. This is not a justification for abortion but rather an explanation and an assurance that no IUOC is damaged when an abortion occurs. The CS sees to that.

The same applies to natural miscarriages. The system takes care of the IUOC and it is not that unusual for the mother to be sure that their later born child is that same child, as in the same IUOC and actual being or soul if you prefer, that was not born at the earlier time. The CS is all about the creation, preservation and development of IUOCs. What happens Virtually in the PMR VR is just part of the development process where QOC is 'polished' and enhanced.

as an intentionally childless couple, sometimes, not often, I might see a child or late teen and think, thats sort of what one of our children might have looked like, and I feel the presence of the child we did not have, and apart from the selfish emotions there, I wonder if I am in some sort of karmic deficit, for not having replaced my FWAU on the planet, not having passed the gift of incarnation on to the next generation, and in the big picture, effectively aborted those potential lives

part of this thought process includes the attitude of the monastics on this, and I take some comfort that failure to reproduce is not some sort of cosmic crime.

I think this discussion reiterates the profound importance of investing a great deal of resources in avoiding any actions that introduce the plausibility of an unwanted or inconvenient pregnancy - which paints the couple or the girl into a corner

...of feeling, possibly an unexpected and irresistable attachment to the new potential life, and then experiencing this conflict between this feeling, the consequential impulse to keep the child, versus the lifestyle and relationship implications for herself, the child, the partner, and the broader family.

having unprotected sex is possibly one of the most selfish, sloppy, dangerous things you can do in life, if you are not in a practical position to be able to deal with a baby - and I point this humourless finger of "judgement" on myself and my own youthful behavior as well

this points to the possible inefficiency of the value systems of some legacy memes (religions), which appear to be based on old technology. The most syntropic value pre-birth control, may become obsolete, post birth control.

When a value becomes obsolete, but the culture retains it, meaninglessly, the young are taught the meaninglessness of values, and values become a thing of mockery, and rightly so.

A tribe of left hemispherics are required to understand the science behind values, and adapt as technology changes.

One also has to account for differences in quality of conciousness and education. A value that may be inefficient for Yale undergrads, may still be a valid value for a culture with less developed impulse control. (i.e. the religious jocks on your highschool football team)

One can become overly class centric in world view, and invest resources inefficiently in projecting the values of our own social class, on a different culture. What is most efficient for that culture, the next thing, may not be to look more like your culture in some surface aspect.

In any situation, there is a range of behaviors, from entropic to low entropy, and it is usually pretty obvious to everyone within the same culture, which reflects better intent. The challenge is rather digging down and forming the best intent according to our values.

Since this thread has made an about face! I would like to hear something very creditable, Like strait from the horses mouth, From the people carrying and having babies. Bette cant be alone. Fred searching for truth

I can't remember where Tom said it - but I believe he said that in the case of abortion there was no FWAU because the system already knew that wasn't going to be a viable option.

David - look at it this way. The potential FWAU doesn't get the PMR data stream when there isn't a virtual body to participate with. The data stream never starts. That FWAU will - in other words - start getting the PMR data stream in another circumstance (get another virtual body with a different woman.) And if there is a late term pregnancy that is lost because of natural causes - the FWAU stops getting the PMR data stream. At that point in the pregnancy the FWAU isn't concentrating strictly on the PMR data stream anyway because not much participation is needed. Nothing dies. You are looking at it in a "little picture" way.

It is wonderful that you had your daughter and you love her so much. But if you and your wife had decided to abort the fetus - that FWAU would have gotten the data stream and participated in PMR with a different family. You wouldn't have "killed" that FWAU. You just wouldn't have had the pleasure of interacting with her as your child. She would have been someone else's child.

You have to look at it as a consciousness participating in a virtual PMR via a data stream not a real body with a consciousness.

So why judge a women when she decides she does not want to have a child? She isn't killing anything. She just isn't giving another consciousness a virtual PMR vehicle to participate in this data stream.

I can't remember where Tom said it - but I believe he said that in the case of abortion there was no FWAU because the system already knew that wasn't going to be a viable option.

David - look at it this way. The potential FWAU doesn't get the PMR data stream when there isn't a virtual body to participate with. The data stream never starts. That FWAU will - in other words - start getting the PMR data stream in another circumstance (get another virtual body with a different woman.) And if there is a late term pregnancy that is lost because of natural causes - the FWAU stops getting the PMR data stream. At that point in the pregnancy the FWAU isn't concentrating strictly on the PMR data stream anyway because not much participation is needed. Nothing dies. You are looking at it in a "little picture" way.

It is wonderful that you had your daughter and you love her so much. But if you and your wife had decided to abort the fetus - that FWAU would have gotten the data stream and participated in PMR with a different family. You wouldn't have "killed" that FWAU. You just wouldn't have had the pleasure of interacting with her as your child. She would have been someone else's child.

You have to look at it as a consciousness participating in a virtual PMR via a data stream not a real body with a consciousness.

So why judge a women when she decides she does not want to have a child? She isn't killing anything. She just isn't giving another consciousness a virtual PMR vehicle to participate in this data stream.

He is beyond judging he flat condemns! He thinks he knows what is best for the system in the way of entropy reduction. Have that baby I say! or pull the system down! Fred searching for truth

We do not tell the system how it should work. That is quite above our position and pay grade as well as yours. We do believe that we report on how it does work and do not see that it works badly. It has its purpose and is consistent in its operation to achieve this purpose. That is the lowering of entropy for itself and thus for IUOCs. The purpose of this Consciousness System focuses upon consciousness as IUOCs, not upon Virtual constructs in a Virtual Reality. Those Virtual constructs or FWAUs exist for the sole purpose of experiencing the PMR reality. They collectively make the PMR reality what it is by their existing quality level. We here in PMR are the cutting edge of entropy reduction by experiencing the intense level of interaction here and learning, hopefully, from the resulting feedback. It is a system known to work well and existing in many variations throughout AUM. Your argument that it should be changed comes from a very limited perspective and will not develop traction with those who are way above us and direct and oversee the operation.

The way that this reality works is consistent and the description of it here is a logical whole that fits together. That description is not based upon logic but it can be logically understood. Feeling an emotionally based desire for it to be otherwise in its operation will not create change. The only way out is through the Virtual door of death. The choice to not come here again will be honored but you will be encouraged to participate in a PMR that will not be that different from the way this one operates. You are unlikely to progress very fast if you can effectively argue against the guidance provided to you and remain in NPMR only. We are expected to take our place on the cutting edge of the development of consciousness periodically as our contribution to the cause for the advantage of all.

Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 9:34 am Posts: 239
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Austin TX

Quote:

Quote:

I can't remember where Tom said it - but I believe he said that in the case of abortion there was no FWAU because the system already knew that wasn't going to be a viable option.

David - look at it this way. The potential FWAU doesn't get the PMR data stream when there isn't a virtual body to participate with. The data stream never starts. That FWAU will - in other words - start getting the PMR data stream in another circumstance (get another virtual body with a different woman.) And if there is a late term pregnancy that is lost because of natural causes - the FWAU stops getting the PMR data stream. At that point in the pregnancy the FWAU isn't concentrating strictly on the PMR data stream anyway because not much participation is needed. Nothing dies. You are looking at it in a "little picture" way.

It is wonderful that you had your daughter and you love her so much. But if you and your wife had decided to abort the fetus - that FWAU would have gotten the data stream and participated in PMR with a different family. You wouldn't have "killed" that FWAU. You just wouldn't have had the pleasure of interacting with her as your child. She would have been someone else's child.

You have to look at it as a consciousness participating in a virtual PMR via a data stream not a real body with a consciousness.

So why judge a women when she decides she does not want to have a child? She isn't killing anything. She just isn't giving another consciousness a virtual PMR vehicle to participate in this data stream.

He is beyond judging he flat condemns! He thinks he knows what is best for the system in the way of entropy reduction. Have that baby I say! or pull the system down! Fred searching for truth

I am not condemning anything. I was simply stating that killing doesn't seem like a loving low entropy way to be "in general", based on my own experience. It's done out of selfishness and fear. I can only go on my experience, interpreting the data the best I can. By all means, go kill to make things easier on yourself and others and have a great time, just don't expect me to agree with it or participate. I can't change anyone but myself, but I can speak up. And for the record and don't care what you all think about my position on this. I am not doing this out of ego, but out of kindness and the desire to protect a life that can't protect itself.

The logic I am hearing in the thread can be extended to state that killing in general (fetus or born (any age)) is just fine because the FWAU will find another data stream. I will not argue this because the evidence does suggest that this may be correct. However, destroying life to make your life easier is selfish is it not?

The answer to this conflict is not ending abortion IMO because ultimately it's just a symptom of something more fundamental which is selfishness / fear, which manifests itself in many other forms. If we love each other unconditionally I don't feel that people would ever consider killing another life, among other things.

And how many people who keep preaching the MY Big TOE have actually validated it with personal experience. I have a feeling that many of you are just trapped in another belief system.

_________________After all this is over, all that will really have mattered is how we treated each other.

I can't remember where Tom said it - but I believe he said that in the case of abortion there was no FWAU because the system already knew that wasn't going to be a viable option.

David - look at it this way. The potential FWAU doesn't get the PMR data stream when there isn't a virtual body to participate with. The data stream never starts. That FWAU will - in other words - start getting the PMR data stream in another circumstance (get another virtual body with a different woman.) And if there is a late term pregnancy that is lost because of natural causes - the FWAU stops getting the PMR data stream. At that point in the pregnancy the FWAU isn't concentrating strictly on the PMR data stream anyway because not much participation is needed. Nothing dies. You are looking at it in a "little picture" way.

It is wonderful that you had your daughter and you love her so much. But if you and your wife had decided to abort the fetus - that FWAU would have gotten the data stream and participated in PMR with a different family. You wouldn't have "killed" that FWAU. You just wouldn't have had the pleasure of interacting with her as your child. She would have been someone else's child.

You have to look at it as a consciousness participating in a virtual PMR via a data stream not a real body with a consciousness.

So why judge a women when she decides she does not want to have a child? She isn't killing anything. She just isn't giving another consciousness a virtual PMR vehicle to participate in this data stream.

He is beyond judging he flat condemns! He thinks he knows what is best for the system in the way of entropy reduction. Have that baby I say! or pull the system down! Fred searching for truth

I am not condemning anything. I was simply stating that killing doesn't seem like a loving low entropy way to be "in general", based on my own experience. It's done out of selfishness and fear. I can only go on my experience, interpreting the data the best I can. By all means, go kill to make things easier on yourself and others and have a great time, just don't expect me to agree with it or participate. I can't change anyone but myself, but I can speak up. And for the record and don't care what you all think about my position on this. I am not doing this out of ego, but out of kindness and the desire to protect a life that can't protect itself.

The logic I am hearing in the thread can be extended to state that killing in general (fetus or born (any age)) is just fine because the FWAU will find another data stream. I will not argue this because the evidence does suggest that this may be correct. However, destroying life to make your life easier is selfish is it not?

The answer to this conflict is not ending abortion IMO because ultimately it's just a symptom of something more fundamental which is selfishness / fear, which manifests itself in many other forms. If we love each other unconditionally I don't feel that people would ever consider killing another life, among other things.

And how many people who keep preaching the MY Big TOE have actually validated it with personal experience. I have a feeling that many of you are just trapped in another belief system.

Yea Yea! I heard all this before! I just care about the baby! And the mom does not count. you call her fearful and selfish, It seems like to me a lot of them are fearless and selfless. This has nothing to do with Toms work this is my view which is base on my experiences. Maybe we can all grow up one day and be saintly like you. In the end I don't think it really matters, We have not gone anywhere anyway, Its just an experience. Now calm down and let other people choose theirs. Fred searching for truth

Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:00 pm Posts: 671
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5

Quote:

The logic I am hearing in the thread can be extended to state that killing in general (fetus or born (any age)) is just fine because the FWAU will find another data stream.

What I am hearing is that, in the case of an abortion, there is no data stream given to a FWAU to begin with. I don't know how true that is, but I imagine there is some point at which the FWAU starts getting the data stream of the fetus if it is to be born. I haven't seen Tom mention this before anywhere, although I did ask him about it by a PM many months ago (I never received a response). If there is no FWAU "attached" to the fetus then it is no more alive than a plant (i.e. no decision space, not sentient, etc.). I think that is a key point.

Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 9:34 am Posts: 239
antispam: No
What is the sum of 3 and 2?: 5
Location: Austin TX

Quote:

Quote:

The logic I am hearing in the thread can be extended to state that killing in general (fetus or born (any age)) is just fine because the FWAU will find another data stream.

What I am hearing is that, in the case of an abortion, there is no data stream given to a FWAU to begin with. I don't know how true that is, but I imagine there is some point at which the FWAU starts getting the data stream of the fetus. I haven't seen Tom mention this before anywhere, although I did ask him about it by a PM many months ago (I never received a response). If there is no FWAU "attached" to the fetus then it is no more alive than a plant (i.e. no decision space, not sentient, etc.). I think that is a key point.

I agree, that in light of not knowing, unless we are all consciousness exploring gurus, it seems to be a general trend to just assume, based on belief, that there is no FWAU "attached". Replace FWAU "attached" with whatever metaphor you prefer. Which is illogical to me. It's the reason I don't just fire a shotgun into a dark wooded area. It would be illogical to assume that there is no life out in the woods that I might kill by accident. One would have to have a respect for life first though.

My main point was not with abortion so much but more with the fear and selfishness associated with making the decisions.

I have similar view points about war. I understand the virtual nature of things because I have experienced it first hand, however I will not agree to go to war, even though I know I will survive death. I try my best to follow a path of non violence because it seems logical.

I just don't logically understand how

_________________After all this is over, all that will really have mattered is how we treated each other.

Isn't there a difference between violently interfering with another consciousness's life experience (killing a person) and not providing a PMR human suit for a consciousness (FWAU) to participate in the data stream? The consciousness is not "killed." It will have to experience the data stream in another human suit by another mother.

The basis for most everything that goes on here in PMR is selfishness and fear. Abortion is not unique in this way nor being advocated. Just so that you and others do not feel such pain and reaction to it, an attempt is being made by me at least as well as Linda, it appears, to explain that the System cares more than PMR society and that the situation is being take care of. No one is suffering unduly or being deprived of life. Perhaps not that one potential life, but another is open to it as an IUOC in another PMR experience packet. Tom is not advocating abortion in any way nor am I. What Tom has said before and what I am saying now is simply that the Consciousness System and AUM care for the existence and well being of every IUOC. But IUOCs are the real thing and not the PMR Virtual beings that they appear as here. Even your own most dearly beloved are IUOCs taking the roles that they enact, just as you are an IUOC enacting the role of being David. This arrangement if fully understood shows you that as IUOCs, we are all the same and all worthy of the highest care and love towards each other. We are all in the same boat. We all share the same existence and are individuated parts of AUM. Your daughter this time could in fact be your mother or your father, your sister or your brother in your next PMR experience or your last one or may not have played any part in relationship to you at all. She is your daughter in this PMR experience packet but has a long history of lives before this and a long history of continuing lives to come, just as you have had and have yet to be. This is a valuable understanding for all of us if we can achieve it. A true understanding of how we are all part of AUM and all fellow IUOCs who should have only love and compassion for each other. This is the individual part of the MBT message. The social aspect of that message should also include this personal aspect. The scientific aspect is the new paradigm for science as Consciousness being the basis and base of reality. It is all just one message but applies and looks differently from these different viewpoints.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum